FASTER THAN LIGHT
Lefteris Kaliambos (Natural Philosopher) April 3, 2015 Historically in 1925 the two young Dutch physicists Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit discovered the electron spin according to which the peripheral velocity of a spinning electron is faster than the speed of light. Surprisingly in my paper "Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism" (2003) I showed that the peripheral velocity (u) of the electron spin is greater than light ( u >> c ), which explains all atomic and molecular phenomena. Nevertheless, according to natural laws when an electron absorbs photons it cannot move as fast as the speed of light c. So hypothetical particles moving faster than light, called tachyons, cannot exist. Also Einstein's gravitaional fields moving at the speed of light cannot exist, because they violate Newton's fudamental action at a distance confirmed by the experiments of the Quantum Entanglement. Today it is well known that in 1925 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered the electron spin which gives a peripheral velocity (u ) greater than the speed of light (u >> c ). This discovery invalidates Einstein’s relativity, according to which there exist no velocities greater than the speed of light. In fact, according to my discovery of the PHOTON-MATTER INTERACTION hν/m = ΔΕ/ΔΜ = c2 when an electron absorbs the photon mass m = hν/c2 it cannot move as fast as the speed of light. Whereas the velocity (u ) of the electron spin cannot be related to the velocity ( υ) of the kinetic energy of the electron, when it absorbs the energy hν and the mass of photons. For example in the Correct Explanation of Photoelectric Effect though photons of mass m = hν/c2 move at the speed of light c, the electrons of mass M cannot move at the speed of light, because in the experiments of Kauffmann (1901) one observes the following expression M2 / Mo2 = c2 / (c2- υ2) Differentiation of this formula led to my discovery of the Photon-Electron Interaction which means that an electron with a variable mass M cannot move as fast as the speed of light c, because the electron of a constant inertial mass Mo (before the absorption) absorbs the mass m = hν/c2 of photons and becomes an electron with a variable mass M. So under the important condition of the intrinsic electron spin which differs fundamentally from the Correct Explanation of Photoelectric Effect in my paper “Spin- spin Interactions of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures” (2008) , I discovered that the peripheral velocity (u >>c ) of spinning electrons gives stronger magnetic attraction than the electric repulsion at an inter-electron separation r < 578.8/1015 m. For two interacting electrons with charge (-e) at a distance r taking into account the successful application of the basic Coulomb law in the Schrodinger equation I applied the fundamental laws of Coulomb and Biot-Savart on the charges of spinning electrons. Note that the magnetic interactions give opposite spin. Here the interaction of the electron charges of (-e) gives a repulsive electric force Fe = Ke2/r2 of the Coulomb law. Moreover in my research of my paper of 2003 the integration for calculating the attractive magnetic force Fm of opposite spin of two electrons led to the following expression: Fm = (Ke2/r4)(9h2/16π2M2c2) Here K is the constant of the Coulomb law because the constant k of the magnetic force is given by k = K/c2 . Also h is the Planck constant, M is the mass of the electron, and c is the velocity of light. Because of the antiparallel spin along the radial direction the interaction of the electron charges gives an electromagnetic force Fem = Fe - Fm . Therefore in my research the integration for calculating the mutual electromagnetic force led to the following relation: Fem = Fe – Fm = Ke2/r2 - (Ke2/r4)(9h2/16π2 M2c2) Of course for Fe = Fm one gets the equilibrium separation ro = 3h/4πMc = 578.8/1015 m. That is, for r < 578.8/1015 m the two electrons of opposite spin having a peripheral velocity (u >> c) exert an attractive electromagnetic force, because the attractive Fm is stronger than the repulsive Fe . Here Fm is a spin-dependent force of short range. As a consequence this situation provides the physical basis for understanding the pairing of two electrons described qualitatively by the Pauli principle, which cannot be applied in the simplest case of the deuteron in nuclear physics, because the binding energy between the two spinning nucleons occurs when the spin is not opposite (S = 0) but parallel ( S = 1). So according to the well-established laws of electromagnetism after a detailed analysis of paired electrons in two-electron atoms I concluded that at r < 578.8/1015 m a motional EMF produces vibrations of paired electrons. Unfortunately today under the influence of the invalid special relativity and in the absence of a detailed knowledge physicists believe that the two electrons of two-electron atoms under the Coulomb repulsion between the electrons move not together as one particle but as separated particles possessing the two opposite points of the diameter of the orbit around the nucleus. In fact, the two electrons of opposite spin because of u>>c behave like one particle circulating about the nucleus under the rules of quantum mechanics forming two-electron orbitals in helium, beryllium etc. In my paper “Spin-spin interaction of electrons and also of nucleons create atomic molecular and nuclear structures” published in Ind. J. Th. Phys. (2008) I showed that the positive vibration energy (Ev) described in eV depends on the Ze charge of nucleus as Ev = 16.95Z - 4.1 Of course in the absence of such a vibration energy Ev it is well known that the ground state energy E described in eV for two orbiting electrons could be given by the Bohr model as E = -27.2 Z2. So the combination of the energies of the Bohr model and the vibration energies due to the opposite spin of two electrons led to my discovery of the ground state energy of two-electron atoms given by E = - 27.2 Z2 +16.95 Z - 4.1 For example the laboratory measurement of the ionization energy of H- yields an energy of the ground state E = - 14.35 eV . In this case since Z = 1 we get E -27.2 + 16.95 - 4.1 = -14.35 eV. Although the peripheral velocity (u>>c) of the electron spin explains very well the atomic and molecular phenomena we cannot observe velocities greater than the speed of light of the same electrons, when they absorb photons. Nevertheless the possibility of particles moving faster than light (tachyons) was first proposed by Bilaniuk, Deshpande, and George Sudarshan in 1962, although the term they used for it was "meta-particle". In the 1967 paper that coined the term, Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. However, it was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not in fact propagate faster than light, and instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation. Nevertheless, negative squared mass fields are commonly referred to as "tachyons", and in fact have come to play a strange role in modern physics. Despite the experiment of Kaufmann (1901) explained not by Einstein’s invalid special relativity (1905), but by natural laws ( my discovery of Photon-Matter Interaction) the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence has been found. Nevertheless today many physicists continue to believe not only in the invalid special relativity but also in hypothetical particles called tachyons. In the “Faster than light-WIKIPEDIA” one reads: “In special relativity, it is impossible to accelerate an object to the speed of light, or for a massive object to move at the speed of light. However, it might be possible for an object to exist which always moves faster than light. The hypothetical elementary particles with this property are called tachyonic particles. Attempts to quantize them failed to produce faster-than-light particles, and instead illustrated that their presence leads to an instability. Various theorists have suggested that the neutrino might have a tachyonic nature, while others have disputed the possibility.” On this point I emphasize that on September 22, 2011, a paper from the OPERA Collaboration indicated detection of 17 and 28 GeV muon neutrinos, sent 730 kilometers (454 miles) from CERN near Geneva, Switzerland to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, traveling faster than light. On 18 November 2011, a second follow-up experiment by OPERA scientists confirmed their initial results. However, scientists were skeptical about the results of these experiments, the significance of which was disputed. In March 2012, the ICARUS collaboration failed to reproduce the OPERA results with their equipment, detecting neutrino travel time from CERN to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory indistinguishable from the speed of light. Later the OPERA team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast. In other words according to natural laws tachyons cannot exist. On the other hand, although nature works in only one way, as early as 1907 Einstein tried to find a way for the modification of the well-established law of gravity by showing dissatisfaction with his wrong special relativity in which he used not the law of the absorption of photons but hypothetical relative velocities with respect to a randomly moving observer. So despite the rejection of the Maxwellian ether by the Michelson –Morley experiment (1887) in favor of Newton's particles of light, Einstein influenced by Maxwell’s fields moving through the fallacious ether(1865) tried to modify the well-established laws of Newton under his massless quantum of fields. Therefore he reintroduced an “ether structure” or introduced a “curvature of space-time” with fallacious gravitational fields or gravitational waves moving at the speed of light. Of course such fallacious ideas violate the fundamental action at a distance of Newton’s laws confirmed by the experiments of the Quantum Entanglement. Under this physics crisis due to fields and relativity I discovered the dipolic photons presented at the interanational conference "Frontiers of Fundamental Physics". Olympia 1993) I showed that EXPERIMENTS REJECT RELATIVITY.LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS INVALIDATE FIELDS AND RELATIVITY. It is of interest to note that my discovery of dipolic photons led to my discovery of the PHOTON-MATTER INTERACTION which invalidates Einstein’s massless quantum of fields responsible for the development of various fallacious hypotheses in special and general relativity. Historically Newton’s law of gravity deduced from detailed observations led to the abandonment of all theories of geocentric systems based on various wrong assumptions. Nevertheless, in Newton’s time there remained a feature which greatly bothered his contemporaries. How could one account for gravity itself? What is that causes the attraction of one body for another? Is there not some intervening medium ( such as the Cartesian ether ) which somehow transmits the gravitational force? Rather than accept Newton’s fundamental action at a distance, (confirmed by the Michelson experiment and the experiments of the Quantum Entanglement ) most scientists influenced by the Cartesian ether preferred to think of all space as filled with some kind of omnipresent fluid. It is fortunate that with the famous words “ I FEIGN NO HYPOTHESES” Newton exempts himself from the obligation to account for the observed consequences of his well-established law of gravity with additional hypotheses. Furthermore under his particles of light having mass (1704) Newton predicted the bending of light near the sun confirmed by Soldner in 1801. Nevertheless, under the influence of wrong theories and of philosophical speculations Einstein tried to find another way for the solution of hypothetical problems about his wrong relativity by saying: Why was only uniform motion relative with respect to a hypothetical moving observer ? Why was only acceleration absolute? At the same time he wanted to modify Newton’s well-established universal law of gravity, because he believed that all laws of nature are the result of his hypothetical relative motions with respect to a randomly moving observer. For example according to his strange idea of relative motions when an observer moves with a moving electron he can measure an increase of mass for all stationary objects in the laboratory. In fact, Einstein in his wrong relativity violated not only the two conservation laws of energy and mass (LAW OF ENERGY AND MASS) but also the principle of relativity by using Maxwell’s invalid electric field E of the Faraday invalid concept of field.(Intensity and false field ). Category:Fundamental physics concepts